I came back from Britain feeling charitable and decided I should offer some help to the gang. And I hope some commenters will join me in helping these four journalists understand one of our great problems.
The gang often discusses transportation problems in this area (though they seldom mention any boring numbers) and agree broadly on two points. There are serious transportation problems in this area, and we have had them for at least twenty years. After that, they get vague. They seldom blame any particular elected officials or bureaucrats for these problems. (I can't recall even hearing them blame President Bush, amazing as that may seem.)
Let me start with a generalization so well known that I am almost embarrassed to mention it: Almost always, governors are the main leaders on transportation policy in their states.
For reference, I will list Washington state's governors for the last twenty years:
I have added a hint for the gang, after each governor's name.
Should I add more hints? Well, just one more. In 1972, as everyone familiar with American politics knows, the McGovern forces took over the Democratic party. But that's enough hints for the gang, at least from me.
But feel free to add other hints for the gang, especially if you do it in a charitable way. Let's treat them as if they actually wanted to understand our transportation problems, but just hadn't come across the right information.
Posted by Jim Miller at January 24, 2008 07:06 AM | Email ThisLet's see and CNN and say NBC & CBS doesn't.
Please......
PS welcome back.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 24, 2008 08:05 AM1. 167/405 interchange. The cloverleaf for heading south from 405 to 167 must be removed. The bulk of the traffic comes from 405 to 167, so let's make a 2 or 3 lane overpass from 405 south over 405 and then down to become 167. The connection from Renton would then be reduced to 1 or 2 lanes that must merge with the lanes from 405 south. Right now it is the people from 405 south that must do a full cloverleaf and then go through a crossover merge into 3 lanes coming from Renton. As for 167 to 405 northbound, there should be at least 2 full lanes merging with 405.
2. Hwy 18/I-90 interchange. Same deal here, there should be high speed lanes going between Hwy 18 and I-90 in both directions. This interchange was recently "upgraded" so that people going from I-90 east to Hwy 18 south have to exit to a stop light at the end of the ramp. It backs up 2 miles in the exit lane on I-90 every day at 5pm. People should be able to exit I-90 at full speed in a lane that becomes Hwy 18 south. The road from Snoqualamie needs to do the merging, not the other way around.
3. Renton S curves. Why haven't these been straightened yet? Seriously, pay the property owners 120% of their fair market value, bulldoze a straight line from Renton City hall across the Cedar River valley to the far hill; straight as an arrow.
4. The DOT needs to start a campaign to elliminate all on-ramps and off-ramps into and out of the left lanes of all our freeways. I-5 from southcenter to downtown is particularly bad. Those left lane interchanges completely eliminate any "through" lanes since both sides of the freeway become "exit" lanes full of cars exiting and merging at slow speed.
5. Push the I-5 express lanes an extra half mile so that they happen south of the I-90 interchange. Then divide it into half north, half south and keep them open for traffic in both directions all of the time. That would create "bypass" lanes through downtown in both directions and would eliminate the tricking "switchable" on/off ramps right at the choke point in downtown.
If KUOW's gang is serious about transportation issues, then they should look at the many creative ideas from local bloggers, engineers, and concerned citizens on the ground in traffic, etc. To start, they could look at the "Transportation Ideas" page compiled by Orb at OrbusMax.com. And there are plenty more sources for common sense and relatively cheap ways to reduce congestion. Finding them only requires a web browser and and openness to new ideas.
But I don't think that's what our Left Leaning Press and Leadership really want. There's an anti-car sentiment in the region. And I think that lobby will strong arm even any sensible Democrat leaders who try to propose some simple, immediate and effective solutions to transit problems.
The ideas are out there, it's the leadership that is lacking. If KUOW is honest, they will challenge our leaders to take a look around. I think that Robert Mak might be capable of such objectivity and real journalism, but I have little faith in the Gang of Four.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 24, 2008 09:00 AMGas tax won't be enough to keep promises
"Most of that potential shortfall stems from an 11 percent increase in the cost of construction supplies between 2002 and 2006, including a 30 percent increase in 2006, Kuper said.
OK, we have increased costs.
"The shortfall can't be blamed on the state Department of Transportation, said Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, chairwoman of the House Transportation Committee.
"I think from a project delivery standpoint, they can crow," she said. "They're finishing their projects on time and on budget."
But, we're finishing projects on time and on budget.....
"Now the state is running short of money to pay for everything. The reasons: Drivers are buying less gas than expected and it's costing the state more to build projects than estimated."
But, we're running low on funds.....
Do we at least get credit for reducing carbon emissions? Of course, if some in the Legislature get their way, we would have increased gas taxes that would have nothing to do with improvements in roadways, and really wouldn't do much for transportation in general.
"Originally the nickel tax package was to end by 2038. The Legislature last year decided that taxpayers will have to pay that tax until 2042 to cover the revenue shortfall, he said. The 9.5-cent per gallon tax hike has no sunset date.
"Sunset Tax" is an oxymoron.
LOL children!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 24, 2008 09:29 AMIt's particularly bad among the comments numbering higher than 9.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 24, 2008 09:31 AMI know what you mean when I try to watch ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBA and our local TV "News" stations. Their leftist bias is so glaring that one cannot help but notice. The same is true with virtually all Western Washington's "Newspapers". Truly an echo chamber of Leninist proportions.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 24, 2008 09:42 AMWow.
First, you are in serious denial, my friend, if you believe that the alphabet networks or their cable comrades are unbiased . I guess when you're tilted that far to the left, any movement toward the center is a move to the right.
Second, it's "Milquetoast".
Posted by: Kent on January 24, 2008 10:01 AMFor several years, I've been working with a group of people (current and former elected officials, policy makers, citizen activists, and others) that have been advocating serious transit and transportation reform in the state of Washington - with a particular focus on the Puget Sound region. With the failure of Proposition 1 at the ballot in November, and Sound Transit likely heading back to the polls for another bite at the apple, a small group convened over the past several months and drafted a set of four recommendations for the Washington legislature to address and adopt for the 2008 session - with hopes that the Governor would have something to sign. The general approach is to focus on accountability and performance for an agency that has been woefully lacking in both.
You can see the recommendations at my blog or download the PDF if you are interested.
Most of your recommendations are solid, but your first recommendation suggests lowering both congestion and greenhouse gases. Those two don't belong in the same recommendation for two reasons.
1) Decreasing congestion should be a primary and immediate goal of any sensible transportation policy. And many of the proposed ideas don't have anything to do with environmental impact and everything to do with small modifications that will utilize existing infrastructure. By tying that to greenhouse gas emissions, even small sensible reforms will be mired in environmental gridlock.
2) Studies, and many current and notable ones, show that at best, even intensive greenhouse mitigation in terms of drastic policy changes with huge economic impacts will have very little effect on actually limiting greenhouse gas production. Such policies will have a far greater economic impact than anything approaching environmental help, and worsening congestion by proposing draconian limits where they do not make sense.
For example, current legislation hopes to impose a very high standard for fuel efficiency on US automakers, without regard to the actual demand for autos. The numbers clearly show that most people don't want small hybrid cars, even in the face of rising gas prices. For most, such vehicles might help with commute costs, but are impractical for carrying loads, families, recreational equipment, etc. So Americans by in large don't buy them. By forcing the US auto makers to a higher fuel efficiency standard, we endanger their ability to compete with foreign auto makers because they will have to make a line of products that people don't want, and drastically lower the prices of those products to the point where they can't make money, just to make the environmental targets.
Policies that bankrupt the economy and hurt business are not popular and will ultimately be rejected in favor of more sensible approaches such as better technology and real incentives. And in the long run, they do nothing to relieve congestion, or mitigate any environmental impact, because short of inspiring people to make changes that have an impact, they actually encourage people to rebel against their foolishness.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 24, 2008 11:11 AMThat said, there is a strong appetite in this community for that particular issue, and to the extent its inclusion helps move these recommendations in front of the legislators and others who would need to act, I can live with it.
What I find interesting is how much more traffic is backed up on the freeway since this 'fix' went into effect.
It's as if the transportation department deliberately designs fixes that cause more bottlenecks and congestion.
Posted by: steve miller on January 24, 2008 11:24 AMThe way projects are staged, the restrictions on labor and methods will prevent work ever being done affordably.
And i speak as a licensed civil and a former dept employee in the long ago time.
Posted by: Clyde on January 24, 2008 11:43 AMProjects are scheduled multiyear sometimes for engineering reasons but also for money reasons - trying to do something everywhere to see our nickel work. this is overhead at all levels, bonds, engineers, flaggers and so on. Quick is cheap
also, the big labor and resulting contractor structure we have limits innovation so i am not sure anyone would try new things.
And the interminable review process trying to make everyone happy means inflation has a real chance to work. How many times do you get to design the same road? a lot
Huh? The foreign auto makers will be held to the same standard.
Posted by: Bruce on January 24, 2008 04:05 PMOK, you are right, I did not clarify that well. It could change, but for now greens seem to prefer only the Toyota Prius. It appears to be more of a Green Badge than an honest uptake of Hybrids by US consumers. Honda recently pulled a hybrid back because of poor sales.
And that is the point, if US consumers are not buying US hybrids, but Detroit is forced to make them anyway based on fuel mandates, then that only harms us, especially when that eventually means the loss of more jobs. Hybrid purchase should be based on consumer demand and not government mandate.
What's more is that Hybrids actually cost more to make in terms of greenhouse gases, and more to maintain in terms of expensive batteries. As this becomes clear to potential green buyers, there may be even more backlash. Not that we should not explore new and better technologies, or try to get more out of every drop of oil, but forcing it via mandate won't make it so if consumers are not buying.
Not only that, but I have a friend who is in the wholesale car buying industry, who told me his fellow buyers won't touch a used Hybrid.
Why?
Because of the $5500 battery worries.
When these Hybrids start having battery problems, they will either get sold to an unsuspecting greenie, or they will go to an auto auction and sell for peanuts.
I don't know if leasing a hybrid is an option, but I suspect it would be a costly option at the end of the lease.
Posted by: GS on January 24, 2008 06:50 PMhttp://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_110707WAK_election_results_KING_LJ.1e86750a5.html
Talks about Prop 1. 7 Billion for roads and 11 billion for Expanding light rail and other transit projects in the region. Basically over 60% of the total bill for transit projects.
Well Fargo ND is very flat. But this highway in Between Minot ND and Williston ND. Small rolling hills. The bottom line It is still about 80 Miles of 4 lane highway. For a fraction of the cost that we spend in Washington State. Could we not learn from them or get ideas to improve our efficiency.
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_110707WAK_election_results_KING_LJ.1e86750a5.html
Talks about Prop 1. 7 Billion for roads and 11 billion for Expanding light rail and other transit projects in the region. Basically over 60% of the total bill for transit projects.
Well Fargo ND is very flat. But this highway in Between Minot ND and Williston ND. Small rolling hills. The bottom line It is still about 80 Miles of 4 lane highway. For a fraction of the cost that we spend in Washington State. Could we not learn from them or get ideas to improve our efficiency.
Can't figure out why all the libs protest Fox news, which was recently chosen as the the most unbiased network, when they have so many left-leaning options? Oh, I get it, they're so used to the monoply thing they resent objective competition, particularly if it exposes the truth about liberals' political intentions.
And why would I want to share my tax rebate with you? It was mine when the government confiscated it and it will be mine (outside of any contributions to private charities) when they return a small portion of it.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 25, 2008 06:47 AM